3 ms·

> legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set. This is exactly wrong. Legislators ar

> legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set. This is exactly wrong. Legislators are supposed to intervene when an executive department comes dangerously close to breaking the law. This is doubly so for the military (Congress holds hearings on military action all the time, must authorize nonwar military action beyond 90 days, has special, stricter rules for military appropriations, etc.). In this specific case, the idea that the US military academies are "autonomous" from Congress is kind of an unserious argument (or, at best misinformed). To get a seat as a student you must get a letter of recommendation from a sitting legislator. All of the generals and admirals, including those in charge of the institutions are required to be nominated and confirmed by the US Congress before they take their positions.

alephnerd 2y ago
There is NOTHING illegal about a civilian giving an academic lecture for other academics. The USNA is a military institution, but a significant portion of their faculty are civilians as well. This is why this is an egregious abuse of power.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  The usna is a part of the executive branch and the executive cannot sponsor election related content (hatch act). The author posted a blog post referring to the lecture in question which called out the specific name of a candidate. If the author made such a reference during her lecture, even if by accident, the organizers, officers of the executive branch, would be at risk of prosecution for sponsoring an election related event, which would be a complete pain in the ass even if they would be found innocent. Cancelling the lecture was prudent. Maybe postponing the lecture would been a more politic choice, but it was still a reasonable thing to do.
  - makk 2y ago
    That is an unserious argument. Or, at least, one made in a vacuum. When making judgements there is following the letter of the law and then there is making equitable decisions, which takes into account both the letter of law and the context in which the decision is being made. In our current environment, where a potential incoming chief executive of the USA is, according to some military leaders who worked closely with him, a fascist, the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. The alternative is to wait until that chief executive may be in power, at which point pressure not to have the lecture will only increase. If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. Sure assuming lecture titled "Why is Trump worse than Hitler?" is paired with another lecture along the lines of "Why is Kamala worse than Mao?" If you can't even pretend to be even-handed about it, this is just a partisan play. But, honestly, the thing that really grinds my gears is not that. My issue is that army about the last institution in US the public KINDA trusts ( as compared to congress, senate, banks, corporates, clergy.. you name it ). Why on earth would you want to fuck with it? Why do you insist on undermining it?
      - makk 2y ago
        If there is an equally well regarded academic who holds that contrasting view, then yes I agree with you have that lecture otherwise there is an appearance of favoritism. But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << If there is an equally well regarded academic And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You? << But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists. In US alone, we should be able to locate at least one among thousands ( According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 10,220 sociology professors in colleges, universities, and professional schools, and 2,630 in junior colleges. - just google search )? I suppose we could limit it to what who gets published, shown on TV and so on, but then we would go back to the 'regarding' question, but, at its core, this is US, where people publish all sorts of idiocy all the time.. I somehow doubt it would require much conjuring. Not to search very far, Buhle has something to say on the subject ( Marxism in the United States: A history of the American left[1] ), but to your point.. not on Kamala specifically. I am willing to give you a 'you got a point here.' [1]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_United_States https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_U...
  - wbl 2y ago
    This is nowhere near a Hatch act violation. First off the Hatch Act doesn't apply to uniformed personnel. What does apply is https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/134410p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... and I just don't see a lecture by a historian, even if it seems to touch on relevant material to the election as falling within it. And that's the case even if someone asks a question and later the conversation becomes more partisan. The traditions of academic freedom would say that speakers aren't identified with the Constitution. Should we prohibit the Latinists at West Point from talking about Cataline? It just isn't the case that every possible statement is prohibited even if it weighs in on matters that some candidates have spoken about.

alephnerd 2y ago

There is NOTHING illegal about a civilian giving an academic lecture for other academics. The USNA is a military institution, but a significant portion of their faculty are civilians as well. This is why this is an egregious abuse of power.

throwawaymaths 2y ago
The usna is a part of the executive branch and the executive cannot sponsor election related content (hatch act). The author posted a blog post referring to the lecture in question which called out the specific name of a candidate. If the author made such a reference during her lecture, even if by accident, the organizers, officers of the executive branch, would be at risk of prosecution for sponsoring an election related event, which would be a complete pain in the ass even if they would be found innocent. Cancelling the lecture was prudent. Maybe postponing the lecture would been a more politic choice, but it was still a reasonable thing to do.
- makk 2y ago
  That is an unserious argument. Or, at least, one made in a vacuum. When making judgements there is following the letter of the law and then there is making equitable decisions, which takes into account both the letter of law and the context in which the decision is being made. In our current environment, where a potential incoming chief executive of the USA is, according to some military leaders who worked closely with him, a fascist, the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. The alternative is to wait until that chief executive may be in power, at which point pressure not to have the lecture will only increase. If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. Sure assuming lecture titled "Why is Trump worse than Hitler?" is paired with another lecture along the lines of "Why is Kamala worse than Mao?" If you can't even pretend to be even-handed about it, this is just a partisan play. But, honestly, the thing that really grinds my gears is not that. My issue is that army about the last institution in US the public KINDA trusts ( as compared to congress, senate, banks, corporates, clergy.. you name it ). Why on earth would you want to fuck with it? Why do you insist on undermining it?
    - makk 2y ago
      If there is an equally well regarded academic who holds that contrasting view, then yes I agree with you have that lecture otherwise there is an appearance of favoritism. But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << If there is an equally well regarded academic And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You? << But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists. In US alone, we should be able to locate at least one among thousands ( According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 10,220 sociology professors in colleges, universities, and professional schools, and 2,630 in junior colleges. - just google search )? I suppose we could limit it to what who gets published, shown on TV and so on, but then we would go back to the 'regarding' question, but, at its core, this is US, where people publish all sorts of idiocy all the time.. I somehow doubt it would require much conjuring. Not to search very far, Buhle has something to say on the subject ( Marxism in the United States: A history of the American left[1] ), but to your point.. not on Kamala specifically. I am willing to give you a 'you got a point here.' [1]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_United_States https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_U...
- wbl 2y ago
  This is nowhere near a Hatch act violation. First off the Hatch Act doesn't apply to uniformed personnel. What does apply is https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/134410p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... and I just don't see a lecture by a historian, even if it seems to touch on relevant material to the election as falling within it. And that's the case even if someone asks a question and later the conversation becomes more partisan. The traditions of academic freedom would say that speakers aren't identified with the Constitution. Should we prohibit the Latinists at West Point from talking about Cataline? It just isn't the case that every possible statement is prohibited even if it weighs in on matters that some candidates have spoken about.